HotFix: Game Balance

[Shaka_D]

25 minutes ago, GuiltyByAssociation said:

Thats bad business advice....

 

and this is a business relationship.

 

WG has to prove change. those half measures won't cut it. thats why people are so tickt off. Many feel with their time (and money) invested WG is just piling on... and with a lot of "Misscommunication" and focus on selling (partly without testing) and other issues people are fed up (understandably) and WG has to endure this and prove change then this sentiment will change.

 

but letting WG do whatever they will without push back... They are lucky to have an enganged community. I've seen games die cause ppl just did not care and some did change for the better but people already have resignated and did not want to bother again.

 

and i feel this change happening here with some players.

No, I wasn't giving business advice and the fact that it's a business relationship has nothing to do with the 'advice' I was giving. That's false logic. Yes, customers should be vocal about the quality of the goods they receive. Yes, if we sit back and say nothing then bad guys will get away with things. But, it goes both ways. People in this forum are being perpetually intolerant and unforgiving, despite there being a clear concerted effort by WG to remedy previous shortcomings imho.

 

I don't dismiss the trust issues some have, but in some cases it's bordering on ridiculous and only shows that some folk appear hellbent on only getting their own way by 100%. It's ludicrous entitlement.

[SilentEnimLegesInterArma]

1 minute ago, Shaka_D said:

I don't dismiss the trust issues some have, but in some cases it's bordering on ridiculous and only shows that some folk appear hellbent on only getting their own way by 100%. It's ludicrous entitlement. 

that's sadly true and welcome to the Internet :D

[HMS_Kilinowski]

Thing is, I generally might believe WG, they are trying to balance things. I just doubt your methods and understanding of game statistics.

For example, how do you guys interpret the following graph?

 

I mean I cut you some slack, cause a graph that makes it into a presentation still showing a title "New Chart", might already be a bit of an ad-hoc result.

Does the graph suggest that players with ~52% winrate played almost 40k battles within the time frame, whereas players in the adjacent stratum, 51.5%-players, only played less than 10k battles? I don't know your data and how you process and analyze it, but it is precisely funny oddities like that, that usually make me very suspicious or even alert, when analyzing data, that there might be something off. If these tables are from your test server with only a few thousand individuals in total, then nevermind. Then it is just bad data and not bad processing. But if this is from the life-servers, with - in the center of the distribution - some 10k individuals per stratum, this is certainly alarming. Is this the quality of the results that WG bases their balancing decisions on?

 

My general advice to Wargaming is: You guys should hire some professionals working with social data, not coming from an IT background. Yes, this game happens on computers, but it is played by people, who, by definition create social data.

[Sir_Sinksalot]

Nice vid, enjoyed that.

 

Could ask a lot of questions but the most important two questions for me would be.

 

1. Why still continue with a 3 tier system instead of a 2 tier?

 

I've played WoWP which has a 2 tier MM and it's the better for it, far more balanced and takes nothing away from the variety of combat. Far easier to balance weapons and battles around ships of similar firepower and health pools. Not similar as in boring and repetitive, there's wayyyyy too much scope between classes, nations and gimmicks for that ever to happen, just similar in regards competitiveness which is what surely the aim should be in any game.

 

2. Division balancing.

 

Sorry if I've missed an update here on this one and it's outlined in the vid that player skill is factored. I'm just also wandering if divisions are balanced to be of the same tier on both teams. If one team has a division of 3 players as top tier while the other tier has a division as bottom tier, it kinda screws the balance, and that's before we even factor the ships they are using and the skill level they are at. Are divisions on both teams currently distributed to be of at least equal in tier and size? and if not, why not?

 

I've also encountered divisions where one ship is a lower tier than anyone else in the battle. For example, it's a T7, T8 and T9 battle, yet one team has a division featuring a player with a T6 ship. Why is that even a thing? 

 

So I'm just wondering what the deal is with divisions in regards the above questions?

 

Thanks

 

 

[Misago]

9 hours ago, Catslave said:

even older and better example: USN Omaha and soblyat Murmansk. Same ship, same guns...but:

Kinda interesting how the exact same gun magically gets +50% penetration by just hoisting the soviet flag instead of the US one...

 

Why does Hindenburg have to pay the price of having 15.5km detection to balance out its incredible 32mm armor and 6km hydro when Petro has 15.3km concealment, 50mm armor, 12km magical radar, shortfused AP with improved pen angles and armor penetration similar to the 380mm found on T8 Bismarck ? Don't let me get started on Kremlin compared to virtually any other T10 tech tree BB...

How there is no bias at all can be seen in higher ranked CB and tournaments like Kots. Kremlin + 6 Petro on each team is a statement. For the past god knows how many years comp is defined by soviet fantasy ships. First it was Moskva with it's magical 12km radar and super stalinium fantasy shells (+ 50mm icebreaker, better then almost all BB), Moskva got replaced by the magical everything Stalingrad and that one got replaced by Petropavlovsk. What other cruisers have been used in that time ? Exclusively cruisers that can actually damage the soviet fantasy ships...IFHE Hindenburg - until it got nerf hammered, then IFHE Henry - until it got nerf-hammered, then Venezia, later Goliath ... only other Cruiser is Des Moines / Salem which can beat the soblyat fantasy in medium range nose in fights.

Kinda strange how the meta exclusively evolves around the soviet fantasy cruisers when there is no bias, everything is tested for balance and the devs actually do play the game....

 

" What is balance ? "

a question that wg is incapable of answering, thats for sure......

 

On a funny side note:

WG starts talking about how they gather all the important spreadsheet data to determine balance ....then shows multiple charts showing the popularity of certain ships. Surely the by far most important factor when deciding if a ship needs buffs or nerfs...

Y"ou see, comrade, soviet steel is just stronger than weak american steel. When soviet ships are too strong, its for realism reasons. When other nation's ships are strong, its balance problem."

 

Which is especially funny considering that when I read the description of that t9 russian battleship saying it was "one of the most powerful battleships in the world." Wow, I thought, I never heard of this supership.

THen I looked it up and found out that it was never built, partially because the engineers were unable to make the armor plates as strong as other countries did.

 

Seriously, I am so sick and tired of WG games giving the russian vehicles completely unrealistic performance, reading from the blueprints where some engineers concocted some kind of fantasy that would need bending the laws of physics to become reality. WoT does that with the space-bending gun depression of low profile turrets and the magic weightless steel, and WoWs has the mystery of the quantum armor, that is simultaneously thick enough to bounce when angled, but not thick enough to fuse. when penetrated.

 

So yeah, please tell us about some more of these "myths" of game balance, hm?

[Nibenay78]

3 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

Learn to forgive and forget. The people on the other side of the argument are also human and make mistakes and bad judgement calls just as you do. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'... They have homes, families, good days and bad days. This doesn't mean everyone should be condemned for eternity because of a mistake they made in the past. Get over it.

No, but they certainly built up their distrust over time, I see no reason why it should not take time to get back to "normal" trust again. Or should we just ignore continous disrespect? That was just the most blatant example.

 

edit: just to make it clear: it's really nice they made this post and the "apology" post. I find this one rather interesting at times, yet some part comes out as camel-piss. How many times did experienced players/CCs point out issues almost in unison and give constructive citisicm, only to be slapped in the face by WG?

 

Just to take a dumb example: WG needed 6+ months of data to realize Hosho is insanely OP having 2 torps against ships with 0 AA? 

[Nibenay78]

20 hours ago, Bubba_S said:

I agree with Shaka here... 

 

Qudos to WG for a good article! It explains a lot of their thinking about the game. A lot of people are against new gimmicks, new ships types AKA CVs and Subs.

People are against shaite mechanics and unfun gameplay. Personally I'd love to have CVs and Subs in the game. As it is today I really dislike both. I have 3 RL friends playing with me currently. One is rather experienced and he just hates CV with a passion. The two new ones just dont have the experience/map awareness to deal with subs and CVs. At low tiers they pretty much learned that they can do NOTHING against CVs but die in slow ships with 0 AA.

 

20 hours ago, Bubba_S said:

But seriously a stagnant and concervative game will loose fun very fast.  The game has to evolve to thrive!

.Its just annoying to pick the wrong ship (which means most) and know you'll can probably forget sneaking up, flanking alone, trying to create crossfires and-so-on-and-so-forth. The "evolution" you talk about is just adding more ships, but subtracting from the gameplay choices from most other ships.

 

[Benser33]

1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I mean I cut you some slack, cause a graph that makes it into a presentation still showing a title "New Chart", might already be a bit of an ad-hoc result. 

Are you suggesting it's called "New Chart" because someone forgot to name it? It's displaying the difference in metrics measures in the past (on the Old Chart) compared to the present (on the New Chart).

 

We're not supposed to interpret any data from the graph, it's just a stylised graphic representative of the difference in metrics. It's based on actual data but it's presented to be pretty, not to actually convey statistical data, it doesn't even have a legend.

[YabbaCoe]

17 hours ago, mihaitha said:

I wonder where CVs fit in the "rock, paper, scissors" balance philosophy.

Rock, Paper, scissors is a name of this principle, while there can be more parts. Honestly I don't know, if there is any other common name for this exact principle.

Simply that means that this principle also improves gameplay variability—each ship type will be in demand in battle because each can be effective against ships of another type, and, at the same time, each has its own counter-class.

 

17 hours ago, CosMoe said:

Regarding the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" principle

 

BB = Rock

DD = Paper

CA = Scissors

CV = ?? 

Sub = ???

 

 

With the recent addition of the 5th ship class you had the big chance to actually create a self-balancing system (Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Lizard).

But for that to work you would have had to make submarines counter CVs.

Instead you chose again that CVs with their oppressive spotting (and 60 seconds DCP sonar ping immunity) counter subs in addition to almost any other ship.

 

You broke the RPS-system with CVs, and instead of fixing it with subs you broke it even harder.

Technically Submarines can counter CVs. It is not the most effective way of play, but it can happen. Same situation, like when your only DD in battle decide to go around the entire map to hunt down the CV. It can happen therefore DD effectively countered a CV, but was the DD usefull and effective for the team? 

Some ships are effective against some other ships, but also are not effective against other ones. This is the principle of Rock, Paper, Scissors, even though you can face 5 different parties

[tom_kat]

2 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Thing is, I generally might believe WG, they are trying to balance things. I just doubt your methods and understanding of game statistics.

For example, how do you guys interpret the following graph?

 

I mean I cut you some slack, cause a graph that makes it into a presentation still showing a title "New Chart", might already be a bit of an ad-hoc result.

Does the graph suggest that players with ~52% winrate played almost 40k battles within the time frame, whereas players in the adjacent stratum, 51.5%-players, only played less than 10k battles? I don't know your data and how you process and analyze it, but it is precisely funny oddities like that, that usually make me very suspicious or even alert, when analyzing data, that there might be something off. If these tables are from your test server with only a few thousand individuals in total, then nevermind. Then it is just bad data and not bad processing. But if this is from the life-servers, with - in the center of the distribution - some 10k individuals per stratum, this is certainly alarming. Is this the quality of the results that WG bases their balancing decisions on?

 

My general advice to Wargaming is: You guys should hire some professionals working with social data, not coming from an IT background. Yes, this game happens on computers, but it is played by people, who, by definition create social data.

The first thing I though when I saw the huge post was: 'These are graphics and information without any sense'.

In data analysis, brute information should be filtered, ordered, analyzed and then showed as conclusions. We were gived a pure bunch of charts with limited info and relationships arguiing the data made WG taking some decisions just for game balance when the reality is that decisions were taked just for the business.

[Blackeon]

14 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

That is quite easy to test out. Be afk for the whole match for around 300 battles. When you win as much as before, you are right.

Presumably this is a joke? At 5mins/battle that is 25 hours of time.

[Misago]

35 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

Rock, Paper, scissors is a name of this principle, while there can be more parts. Honestly I don't know, if there is any other common name for this exact principle.

Simply that means that this principle also improves gameplay variability—each ship type will be in demand in battle because each can be effective against ships of another type, and, at the same time, each has its own counter-class.

 

Technically Submarines can counter CVs. It is not the most effective way of play, but it can happen. Same situation, like when your only DD in battle decide to go around the entire map to hunt down the CV. It can happen therefore DD effectively countered a CV, but was the DD usefull and effective for the team? 

Some ships are effective against some other ships, but also are not effective against other ones. This is the principle of Rock, Paper, Scissors, even though you can face 5 different parties

"Technically" a sub can counter CVs? THe one class with automatic DCP and long-lasting DCP at that? And pray tell, how much time do subs spent on average going after CVs as their main job, rather than when everything else is dead?

That's something I'd be curious about in that spreadsheet. Because from where I am sitting, both CVs and subs don't really have a counter that is effective against them the way BBs counter cruisers or cruisers counter DDs. At the same time, these two classes seem to be able to do well against multiple classes.

 

Seriously, saying a sub "can" counter a CV is just ridiculous. If the counter only works on a tuesday when its full moon in a month ending on y, then it is not a counter, that's an accident.

 

Just admit it, subs and CVs are just there to ruin other people's fun.

 

 

[ColonelPete]

17 minutes ago, Blackeon said:

Presumably this is a joke? At 5mins/battle that is 25 hours of time.

Nope. You have the theory that player contribution does not matter. Why play at all?

[Blackeon]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

Nope. You have the theory that player contribution does not matter. Why play at all?

I don't play PvP!

[ColonelPete]

6 minutes ago, Blackeon said:

I don't play PvP!

Then why make theories about something you do not know?

[Blackeon]

Just now, ColonelPete said:

Then why make theories about something you do not know?

Because I used to and stopped because it was frustarting.

[ColonelPete]

9 minutes ago, Blackeon said:

Because I used to and stopped because it was frustarting.

Considering your theory, there is a good chance you did not understand how the gamemode works.

[Blackeon]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

Considering your theory, there is a good chance you did not understand how the gamemode works.

Well I did play about 60k battles in WoT so I think I have a vague idea about how it might work. Now if you can explain to me why I am wrong?

[ColonelPete]

9 minutes ago, Blackeon said:

Well I did play about 60k battles in WoT so I think I have a vague idea about how it might work. Now if you can explain to me why I am wrong?

• WoT is not WoWs
• there is too much variation in player results if their contribution did not matter (if contribution did not matter, we would all get the same results)
• your theory would be easy to prove, but nobody managed that in over 6 years
• to the contrary, we have enough accounts that prove that non-contribution gives bad results
• do you really think that an unicum with 65% solo winrate would manage the same winrate by going afk?

[YabbaCoe]

59 minutes ago, Misago said:

"Technically" a sub can counter CVs? THe one class with automatic DCP and long-lasting DCP at that? And pray tell, how much time do subs spent on average going after CVs as their main job, rather than when everything else is dead?

That's something I'd be curious about in that spreadsheet. Because from where I am sitting, both CVs and subs don't really have a counter that is effective against them the way BBs counter cruisers or cruisers counter DDs. At the same time, these two classes seem to be able to do well against multiple classes.

 

Seriously, saying a sub "can" counter a CV is just ridiculous. If the counter only works on a tuesday when its full moon in a month ending on y, then it is not a counter, that's an accident.

 

Just admit it, subs and CVs are just there to ruin other people's fun.

 

 

And these DCP issues can still be addressed, if necessary. This testing still haven't finished, so plenty changes still can be applied. 

Also now Subs have two types of torpedoes, so when with the non-homing one, the submarine can try to hunt the CV like any other torpedo surface ship does. And deal significant damage without being attacked. But on the other hand, I agree that CV can't really counter a submarine much. 

[Misago]

2 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

And these DCP issues can still be addressed, if necessary. This testing still haven't finished, so plenty changes still can be applied. 

Also now Subs have two types of torpedoes, so when with the non-homing one, the submarine can try to hunt the CV like any other torpedo surface ship does. And deal significant damage without being attacked. But on the other hand, I agree that CV can't really counter a submarine much. 

But the current design of both classes has to have a counter in mind, since the dev article mentions the rock paper scissors. So, what ARE the counters to subs and CVs currently in game?

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

2 hours ago, YabbaCoe said:

Technically Submarines can counter CVs. It is not the most effective way of play, but it can happen. Same situation, like when your only DD in battle decide to go around the entire map to hunt down the CV. It can happen therefore DD effectively countered a CV, but was the DD usefull and effective for the team? 

Some ships are effective against some other ships, but also are not effective against other ones. This is the principle of Rock, Paper, Scissors, even though you can face 5 different parties

So what class is the carriers Achilles' heel?

 

What class (or what specific ship out of the hundreds that can't) can seek out a carrier and effectively and reliably win a majority of the engagements sinking it and sending the carrier player to port? Please, say DD's. Because carriers have been the effective counter to DD's for over 2 years until Lesta finally decided to do something about destroyers being shat on by carriers for zero risk.

[Nibenay78]

2 hours ago, YabbaCoe said:

Rock, Paper, scissors is a name of this principle, while there can be more parts. Honestly I don't know, if there is any other common name for this exact principle.

Simply that means that this principle also improves gameplay variability—each ship type will be in demand in battle because each can be effective against ships of another type, and, at the same time, each has its own counter-class.

I really want to know what the definition of RPS is for WG??? For me it would mean something like class BB generally would have a significant/major advantage in battle vs cruisers, possibly in a 1 vs 1 scenario but also by simply being a participant in the battle as a whole. It's not the most detailed definition but it's enough for me. This advantage should NOT mean 100% of encounters comes out better for the BB.

 

This does work for me "generally" with BB vs CA/LC vs DD.

How exactly does submarines counter CV on a general basis? Are CVs noticably disadvantaged by the SS participating? Does it frequently die against SS? 

 

Quote

Technically Submarines can counter CVs. It is not the most effective way of play, but it can happen. Same situation, like when your only DD in battle decide to go around the entire map to hunt down the CV. It can happen therefore DD effectively countered a CV, but was the DD usefull and effective for the team? 

Some ships are effective against some other ships, but also are not effective against other ones. This is the principle of Rock, Paper, Scissors, even though you can face 5 different parties

This is not the principle of RPS. This is just taking an example that is possible to happen by sheer randomness. Your example is like saying "the shima actually killed off the chasing DM". Sure it can happen, sure it will happen, but I don't think either me or you will call DDs a strong opponent to cruisers, or say that cruisers are going to have a hard battle because it's less BB and more DDs. 

 

In your example the DD was not a counter, not useful. Wasting 10-15 minutes to get a single kill (usually getting killed instead), while playing ones own ship as not participating and in fact doing the complete opposite of what it should do is not a counter.

 

 

[tom_kat]

9 minutes ago, Europizza said:

So what class is the carriers Achilles' heel?

The carriers Achilles' heel are the usual CV players that cries a lot about Halland'ss OP AA and wonders why WeeGee don't nerf it. Those who don't know how on the old RTS system you should attack carefully specific ships so you were able to minimize lost planes (that unreal thing when the CVs had limited number of attack planes).

So, yes, the only CV weakness is the players themselves.

Pretty annoying.

[Nibenay78]

18 minutes ago, Europizza said:

So what class is the carriers Achilles' heel?

in RTS times, a good AA cruiser could make life miserable near himself for the CV.

I really really want to hear @YabbaCoe answer this one and make me buy it. I have specced Minotaur to max (without module which I DID use for a while now), Yet been pissed on by reasonably average CVs...